All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant was residing together with the family of the victim B (the 15-year old) and the victim.

The victim's victim, who is a person with a disability in view of the ability to live, raises the victim, and the defendant issued a warning to the victim or a behavior of the victim on behalf of the victim.

The defendant had a mind to have sexual intercourse with the victim by force using a relationship in which the victim had his own mind and hear his speech.

A. From March 2016 to July 2016, the Defendant returned home at the Defendant’s house located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and went home in a toilet and asked the victim to open his/her own body, etc., and the victim wants to enter the toilet, and the victim talked with the victim’s chest and closed the toilet, and tried to get off the victim’s chest, and add his/her own sexual organ to the victim’s lower body. However, the toilets did not mean narrow and narrow, and the victim was sexual intercourse by inserting his/her own sexual organ into the part of the victim’s body by moving the victim into a lower body and laying down the victim’s bridge.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by force, has sexual intercourse with the victim, who is a juvenile (hereinafter “instant charges”). B From March 2016 to July 2016, the Defendant, from the above Defendant’s office, laid off the victim on the floor, laid off the victim’s clothes on the floor, laid down the victim’s body on the floor, put the victim’s sexual organ on the part of another victim’s body, put the victim into the victim’s sexual organ on the face, continued to put the victim up the victim’s sexual organ up, and then put the victim into sexual intercourse again from the victim’s back to the victim’s sexual organ.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by force, had sexual intercourse with the victim who is a juvenile (hereinafter “instant charge”). The gist of the grounds for appeal is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the Defendant or misapprehending the facts (Article 1 of the facts charged).